Friday, January 15, 2016

I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I first became eligible to vote in 1980. I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser. I have also worked for Republican presidential campaigns, although not this time around. Despite this history, and in important ways because of it, I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination....

No
major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of
knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness. It
is little surprise, then, that many of Mr. Trump’s most celebrated
pronouncements and promises — to quickly and “humanely” expel 11 million
illegal immigrants, to force Mexico to pay for the wall he will build
on our southern border, to defeat the Islamic State “very quickly” while
as a bonus taking its oil, to bar Muslims from immigrating to the
United States — are nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts.

No wonder people have increasingly little use for Republicans. They stand for nothing but the status quo. They promise nothing but the status quo. They offer nothing but the status quo. They are, quite literally, hopeless.

For Republicans, there is an additional reason not to vote for Mr. Trump. His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism, in ways that Hillary Clinton never could. For while Mrs. Clinton could inflict a defeat on the Republican Party, she could not redefine it. But Mr. Trump, if he were the Republican nominee, would.

Mr. Trump’s presence in the 2016 race has already had pernicious effects, but they’re nothing compared with what would happen if he were the Republican standard-bearer. The nominee, after all, is the leader of the party; he gives it shape and definition. If Mr. Trump heads the Republican Party, it will no longer be a conservative party; it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one. Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions.

An angry, bigoted, populist party sounds a lot more appropriate and viable in the last days of a failing multicultural empire than a go-along-to-get-along Wile E. Coyote party. And a dramatic break with the Republican party's best traditions, which are stabbing its base in the back and caving into Democrats, is long overdue.

The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him.

Peter Wehner arrived in Washington D.C. in 1983, and never left. He was hired by Bill Bennett as a speechwriter in 1987, very late in the Reagan Presidency, and that is how Wehner lays claim to being a Reagan alum, and somehow, in his mind, it makes him an expert in decoding the Reagan philosophy. But Wehner went on to be part of a team of speechwriters for the second Bush presidency, alongside Michael Gerson, and stayed with the Bush administration, in a capacity that the Washington Post described as, “paid to read, to think, to prod, to brainstorm — all without accountability.”....

Trump just isn't the right sort to be governing a nation such as the United States, don't you know. He actually seems to be listening to those benighted peasants, and willing to actually address their silly concerns! He is a danger to how we do things.

Vox: "The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him. "

The Republican establishment have no core principals any more, so understandably the only thing they are interested in is keeping the Washington gravy train rolling. They know that Hillary will do that. They can't be sure about Trump. That is why they are so terrified. If anything desperately needs redefining, it is the modern day Republican party.

I don't plan to vote for anyone, as I don't vote in federal elections anymore (voting legitimizes a system gone rogue). That being said, I'm happy to watch Trump strike fear and loathing in the hearts of establishment eunuchs.

They stand for nothing but the status quo. They promise nothing but the status quo. They offer nothing but the status quo.

An excellent windup to a stump speech.

As to the establishment republicans, the think to remember is that politics for them is not "public service" no matter how much they bleat about it. Politics is a career. This is what they do to pay their mortgage and buy their food. It's also where their status comes from. There's plenty of money and status for them in being #2. In fact, as I've mentioned before, #2 has it's advantages - 80% of the perks with none of the responsibility.

Quislings like this see Trump (or any other non-establishment candidate) as a threat to their jobs. They've seen him bellow out "You're fired!" That's what they're really worried about.

I worked...in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser...No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness.

LOL, except for a few others including his prior boss in the White House. Watching this cuckservative project the last Bush's failings onto Trump is hilarious.

"They've seen him bellow out "You're fired!" That's what they're really worried about."

A local pastor told me that because Trump can't say "You're Fired!" to government employees/"representatives" like he could in the private sector he would have problems. Trump would have to work with quislings.

... as indifferent to facts... LOL. Here comes a Bush II speechwriter complaining about someone else ignoring facts. If I had a dollar for every time a bureaucrat ignored facts, I would start a reserve bank.

A local pastor told me that because Trump can't say "You're Fired!" to government employees/"representatives" like he could in the private sector he would have problems. Trump would have to work with quislings.

Your pastor is quite wrong. It's way too late to argue President's are actually constrained by laws - that train left the station years ago. We're a nation of men now, not laws, and bold men can do things timid men don't even dream of.

No, it shouldn't be like that, but it is, and pretending we're still a nation of laws when a Republican is in power is a very cuckservative thing to do.

@1 You have VD's position wrong, as I've seen. VD doesn't claim Trump is going to win (that's Scott Adams). VD claims Trump is our only hope of dealing with immigration and setting the US on a course that doesn't go to general unrest to civil war to collapse and partition.

@35 Yeah, Obama fired plenty of people he didn't have the power to fire.

If he wants to engage (and he'll have to to clean out the stables) he has plenty of tricks he can play to get people to quit. Some may hang in there and take it to court, but they won't be 'working'. They'll be in 'rubber rooms' like the various New York school boards use - an office with no phones where you clock in and clock out and they don't give you anything to do because they can't trust you. For bonus points, install cellphone jammers to limit outside contact.

I'm sure the Republican's plan was to give Trump the Ron Paul treatment of shady tricks and backstabbing. The problem is, Trump isn't a nice guy like Ron Paul was. Trump has contributed and rubbed elbows with so many of these people, one can only imagine the amount of skeletons he is privy to.

Another thing I find humorous is the left's shortsightedness. They are so used to the Repubs playing their roll of the Washington Generals they can't imagine things not going their way. Case in point: in a recent interview Trump was asked about how Obama has essentially ruled via Executive Order. His response was something along the lines of, "Well he's set an interesting precedent" Who wants to bet the Republicans who have been impotent / silent as Obama has done this will set up the biggest "Muh Constitution" howl when/if a President Trump does so.

@24 Salt:He'd prefer Hillary, who, like Obama, is a demagogic figure, an alternative to our Constitutional system.It really doesn't surprise me the cuckservatives would rather have the Lizard Queen.Like 0bozo she would have her use, as a scapegoat - for example, imminvasion.In the '07 attempt at amnesty, who could the GOP blame? Mind you, if had been enacted or not it would have been a failure, but the GOP couldn't blame the failure of it's passage on the Democrats - they were even more eager.Another example is, and you hear it on talk radio all the time, is ''that stupid 0bozo pulled our troops out of Iraq'' even though the agreement to do so was put in place by the Bush family.Sure Hillary screwed the pooch on Libya, no doubt about it, but who were just as eager to bump off Qdaffy? The neoconmen, who were claiming the disarmament of Libya an example of ''success'' from the Iraq misadventure and then enthusiastically backed Hillary/0bama's 'regime change'.When it turned into an epic failure, guess who's left holding the bag and guess who gets to roll their eyes and walk away whistling?They weren't all that dismayed Romney lost were they? Because they got four more years of a scapegoat.

If anyone says the President can't fire government employees anytime he wants, point that person to when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers and busted their union. Point out to them that not one of those people ever got their job back.

Trump could literally spend his entire four years bringing individual employees into the Oval Office and firing them on camera and turn Celebrity President into a 5 day show each week. Those ex-employees can hire lawyers at personal expense to sue while Trump will have DOJ lawyers defending him for free*

And this very same guy had this to say about Trump's performance at the debate last night.

“This was Trump’s best moment, and this is his best debate,” Wehner said in an e-mail exchange with Bloomberg Politics. “People will remember the Trump answer, with even Cruz applauding his answer.” . . .

The POTUS cannot fire civil servants. There are laws that controls how that is done. The POTUS can hire/fire at will all his political appointments. In some case, though, an uSA Senate impeachment and removal may have to be followed.

Oh, that ain't the half of it. The President is largely irrelevant to USG. At some point they will change the portraits in the halls, but other than that no one in USG really gives a damn who is President.

#54 I think all Cabinet appointments submit a letter of resignation to the president when they take office. Goes back to Johnson's impeachment. Could be an urban legend I picked up in high school, but I seem to recall a president has letters of resignation to pull at any time, since they're approved by the Senate.

Peter Wehner is an idiot. The Republican party is not Conservative, Bush was not Conservative, I dare say Wehner is not Conservative. If anything is Conservative, it would minimally reflect fiscal constraint, defer to the States in accordance with the Constitution, and oppose Frankfurt School Marxist Progressive Liberals, perhaps jailing some for their crimes of terrorism and misuse of office. I bet there are not 20 members of Congress sufficiently Conservative and Christian that I would invite them to my home. A few did not attend the Circus of Sycophancy that is the SOTU, and only one walked out. A few Supreme court justices did not join that circus. The rest are lost, misbegotten members of a privileged elite that need to get knocked back to Peoria.

> The POTUS cannot fire civil servants. There are laws that controls how that is done.

Himself? No, he can't. There are procedures that have to be followed. But the people he appoints will be the ones issuing the orders, and refusal to follow orders is still grounds for dismissal, even for civil servants.

@42 With respect to representatives, he's correct. With respect to employees, he's not. If they don't follow orders, they can be fired.

Having some familiarity with a federal agency I can tell you that the leadership usually changes when a president from a different party is elected. Those appointed leaders usually bring in a cadre of upper management types with them.

The big thing though is the trend for presidential directives and big changes to the Federal Register completely bypassing congress. Most people don't know it, but truly staggering amount of regulations are added each year to the Federal Register.

I don't consider Trump ''inevitable'', and here's why:Right now Vegas has odds for all the remaining playoff teams to win the Super Bowl.The (current) favorite is the Panthers at 3:1. Mind you, they have two games that it's quite possible they could lose, before they can even go to San Fran.Likewise, somehow the Repukes could engineer a way to deny Trump the nomination - even if he gets enough delegates to clinch it.After that Trump says 'fuck it' and doesn't run third party. Then the GOP limps to November with their hand-picked chump - just like they did four years ago.Then the Lizard Queen finally does ascend to the cherry blossom throne - and then makes Huma First Lady.

A lot of Republicans could write this op ed from exactly the opposite perspective - i.e., if you nominate another gracious loser establishment weenie like Jeb, I will not vote for him.

There are many reasons to abstain from voting for Mr. Trump if he is nominated, starting with the fact that he would be the most unqualified president in American history.

Ha, the current one takes that argument off the table.

During the course of this campaign he has repeatedly revealed his ignorance on basic matters of national interest

The current one did that on campaign and STILL does it after seven years in office!

Mr. Trump has no desire to acquaint himself with most issues, let alone master them. He has admitted that he doesn’t prepare for debates or study briefing books; he believes such things get in the way of a good performance. No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness.

So, just like Obama then.

Mr. Trump’s virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American.

So, just like Obama then.

His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism

The Republican party is not conservative and needs to be destroyed!

many Republicans will find themselves in a situation they once thought unimaginable: refusing to support the nominee of their party because it is the best thing that they can do for their party and their country.

Base to Establishment: if you want to leave the party, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

@56 If you are under the impression cabinet members are in control of their departments, you seriously don't understand how USG works.

You don't understand what you are saying. First, forget the constitution. Presidents ARE relevant to the level they want to pursue legislation by executive orders. This trend has been increasing with each administration regardless of party.

Secondly, appointed cabinet and department leadership have more sway than you might think. True the bulk of the middle management and worker bees stay the same, but I personally have seen department level upper management changed to carry out the President/Secretary's policies. The leadership writes up the changes in the Register, and the minions have to find ways to implement it.

@ 59 - No, James, it can't. Any move a real President took to re-assert this authority would be immediately tied up in the courts, who would then decide in USG's favor after issuing a stay freezing the status quo in place for years.

No, the change we want and need won't come through ordinary, electoral politics and that sort of change. Even an ideal President doesn't have the power or the authority to do it.

Change on the magnitude that we are seeking will require, at a bare minimum, a new constitutional convention, but realistically will most likely involve a coup or an outright revolution.

@ 63 - I hear you, and I wish I could agree with you, but I simply cannot. Yes, there are some changes that get implemented. I know colleagues who went from spending money one week on sex abstinence training in Africa to spending money on condom giveaways in Africa in two weeks, after Clinton to Bush.

But real change?

In my view, USG would hunker down, subvert policies at every corner, lawyer up, have the courts on its side, and ride it out.

No, USG needs to be dismantled, root and branch. It's not going to just change and follow new orders. Do you know how many people in this town have real power over huge budgets? You think they're just going to walk away?

My first presidential election was 1988. I worked on the campaign of Bush the First. But after new taxes, Ruby Ridge, Panama, Iraq War I, and Somalia, I couldn't figure out just what the Republicans were interested in conserving. Since then, except for 1996 when I registered as a Republican so I could vote for Buchanan in the primaries, I have been a registered independent.

As for the firing civil servants debate, a truly practiced bureaucrat can obey every order given and still make sure not one thing gets done. Especially when you have 80,000 pages of rules that have to be followed.

> Any move a real President took to re-assert this authority would be immediately tied up in the courts, who would then decide in USG's favor after issuing a stay freezing the status quo in place for years.

What move to re-assert his authority? He selects the cabinet. That's never changed. They (with his input) select the middle management. They're the ones that reassign/hire/fire the rank and file civil service employees.

The president sets the direction. He doesn't handle the day to day decisions. And he certainly does have the authority to remove any cabinet member at any time he wishes to do so.

@64 Jourdan, you are clueless. You fight with the weapons at hand, not the ones you wish you had. Your statement about needing a constitutional convention is tantamount to saying the constitution is no longer relevant, which is the operative fact.

Look at the damage done to the constitutional provisions by G.W. Bush's executive actions regarding the "war on terror".

The POTUS cannot fire civil servants. There are laws that controls how that is done.

Your second sentence is absolutely true. But the President is above the law. I don't like that fact, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Who arrests the President when he breaks the law? The United Nations? The answer is no one. Now flippantly firing employees like Celebrity Apprentice won't fly well, so there would need to be justification for firing government employees. But a popular President can pull it off. And even if he isn't popular and breaks the law, he is effectively immune to lawsuits. Those fired employees will need to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get their jobs back, while the President won't pay a dime.

"Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions."

The election of its first president helped spark the War of Northern Aggression, because it was viewed by the Southrons as an aggressively progressive party.

Clearly changing the direction of the party is not something outside of its tradition.

Of course, from the Yank point of view "Union!" is a conservative value. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Trump is the candidate standing aggressively behind preserving the union. A traditional Republican value.

"Wehner is Jewish."

Wehner is a common name in Germanic languages with no particular association with Jews. It certainly didn't arise among them. It translates into English as "Wagoneer," although the Germanic form has been preserved when used as a surname, "Wagner."

Being from NY, my initial reflexive impression is that he is of Dutch descent.

@66 Go play with this for a little bit:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

If assuming the White population votes at 64%, a little low compared to 2004 and 2008, and Trump pulls in 64% of the white vote, 10% of the Black vote (close to the historical average), and his share of the Hispanic vote drops to 13%, Trump still wins 300 to 238 in the electoral college.

@74 I just showed the following to my actual-in-the-real-world-not-on-a-blog USG employees and they all laughed.

Of course they did. That is exactly what the air traffic controllers did, just before they were fired. Your fellows, like all bureaucrats, are very good at one thing. Focusing on the past. That is how they do their jobs, check the manual, see how it was done in the past, and that is how it will be done today.

Any thought of how things will be done tomorrow...for them, the answer is how it was done yesterday.

And yes, their jobs were absolutely protected yesterday, and for a long time before that. But what they can't see is change in the future. That is why the Federal Reserve got caught flat-footed by the housing crisis. That is why the US military lost the Vietnam War, the second Iraq War, and Afghanistan. That is why retired Detroit city employees lost their pensions. And that is why, at some point in the future, when the US government can't meet all of its obligations, some of your fellows, or their replacements, are going to be out of a job, no matter what the law says.

FYI, I don't think Trump will win. I think the Republicans would rather blow up their party then give him the nomination. So I do think your fellows are perfectly safe. But one day they won't be, and that day the law is going to be ignored.

Click on the link Vox provided and look through the columns he's written. He is a self-professed Christian, although I suspect of the "Churchian" variety.

We're splitting hairs, because he's totally cucked and an obvious shabbos goyim. I heard Wehner interviewed this morning on neocon talk radio, and he even brought up Pat Buchanan's 1992 run. I'm paraphrasing but he mentioned how Buchanan's "anti-Semitic tendencies" were completely unacceptable for the GOPe. (Apparently, not wanting to start endless wars in 'Stan countries is anti-Semitic.)

Regardless, after each of his rhetorical points about Trump, I kept thinking "Feature, not a bug."

About redefining conservatism, what is his fear, exactly? That people will think of racism and walls when they hear the word instead of what? Wars in distant lands, prescription drug subsidies, and bailing out Wall Street? No one's done more to tarnish conservatism than the Republican party, so long as it's pretended to stand for the ideology (at least relative to the other party).

I don't think Trump is a conservative, strictly. But I don't much care for two reasons: 1). Who else is, really?, and 2). I'm not sure I am, if the result since its supposed ascendancy with Reagan has been this. This disastrous, feckless, nonsensical, pretend opposition.

It is. Although Trump fended off that comment masterfully—an indication of how an alpha male refuses to surrender frame, Cruz is absolutely right.

Here are some of The Mountain That Writes' tweets from earlier today: Here are some of Larry Correia's tweets from this morning: New York Values! Regular America loves things like gun control and bans on large sodas.

New York Values! Because Iowa wants plagues of rats and nowhere to park.

New York Values! Because Nebraskans would love to pay $3000 a month to live in a 400 square foot closet.

New York Values! Because Idaho just can't get enough Michael Bloomberg!

New York Values! Cause the liberal elite allow the working class to cross the bridge into Manhattan-but only through the servant's entrance.

New York Values! Because the rest of America can visit for about three days before we get tired of the constant honking and sirens.

New York Values! Means going to Central Park to "get back to nature" and only seeing 20,000 people in half an hour.

New York Values! By which standards Connecticut is considered a scary wilderness filled with menacing rednecks.

And sure enough, idiots like Bloombert, Cuomo, DeBlasio, etc. are out in force today proving his point. People will remember how Trump didn't lose frame, even if they only subconsciously understand that, but people will also remember Cruz's remarks and that they were nodding in understanding as he said them, because everyone knows how irritatingly smug and arrogant New Yorkers are.

"Cuomo said Friday that members of the GOP with “extreme” views are creating an identity crisis for their party and represent a bigger worry than Democrats such as himself.“Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show.

“Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

He added that moderate Republicans, such as those in the state Senate, “have a place in their state.”"

This election cycle is a reverse of the last...I don't know...seven or so.

The base has had to suck it up and vote/support ($) RINOs for decades.

Now that the GOPe is being asked to possibly support a candidate who energizes the base (no certainty he takes the nomination), the GOPe is absolutely revolting. No way could they do it. No chance. They will work to sabotage the base pick by writing NY Times Op-Eds, appearing on MSM shows, etc.

Unbelievable. This fucking idiot actually believes that he can persuade people to vote his way by appealing to their feelings toward... the Republican party (!).

Look, dumbass, I'll make this real clear for you. NO ONE actually LIKES the Republican party. No one EVER liked it. Those warm feelings of loyalty and affection you're appealing to don't exist now, and never did. The ONLY REASON anyone ever voted Republican* was to OPPOSE LIBERAL POLICIES.

So, naturally, when it becomes clear to the people that the Republicans have neither the desire nor the ability to do the only thing that could give their party value, the people look for alternatives. The R party isn't something people feel loyalty and affection for, like their country or their church. It's a means to an end, nothing more, and when it fails in that end, it gets replaced. Deal.

In the Spring of 1996, I was hired as an intern at Empower America. This was during the GOP primary, and Pat Buchanan seemed to be doing well. Bill Bennett had a staff meeting, and asked each of us if it came down to a contest between Buchana and Bill Clinton, which would we vote for. Everyone excepting myself and one other staffer (a guy named "Christian") said they would vote for Clinton. I was astonished and disheartened.

@81 Not to belabor the issue, but I think both views are correct. Wehner may well identify as a Christian - so does Michael Gerson, with whom he came to Washington. Gerson's grandfather was Jewish - more than likely some of Wehner's ancestors were as well.

With the exceptions of NYC, Albany, Syracuse and Buffalo, that would pretty much empty out the entire state, which is mostly rural farmland and forest.

And Koch even referred to NYC North (Albany) as a "land of pickup trucks and gingham dresses."

When I tell people from The City that I live upstate I append; Upstate as in north of Albany, not as in north of 95th street.

Most of us here (who voted single issue Second Amendment against Cuomo in the last election) would be delighted if we could take a giant chainsaw and cut the lower state off at the upper Westchester county line and push it out into the Atlantic.

"New York Values! By which standards Connecticut is considered a scary wilderness filled with menacing rednecks."

A president could appoint 10 Supreme Court justices who would outvote the existing 9, and now the supremes are on the president's side. Or, the president could simply say ``The court have made their decision, now let them enforce it,'' and ignore the courts completely. There is precedent for both, from back when we still paid attention to the Constitution.

Now that we have entirely abandoned the Constitution, the president can do whatever the military will back.

I read "NYT" and assumed "Brooks," so I was amazed at the line about voting Republican since 1980. Like his predecessor Safire, I bet he hasn't voted Republican in decades, since pants-creases are paramount.

@5. dc.sunsets:"the status quo isn't static. It's a swan-dive."

Nice use of imagery.

@62. Dexter:

Demonstrating adeptly that sometimes the best way to fisk someone is to read out loud what they wrote.

Does anyone here know who first used the term "nativism" in the US? I know it was from the 1830s and used initially against Catholic immigrants, but who first used the term pejoratively? I'll assume a journalist, but who? Same goes for populism. I recall being told about Huey Long by my father, and aside from Long personally, wondering what specifically was so evil about populism. When/why/by whom did those become terms of opprobrium?

@23-You're right, and it's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, flaws in our system. It wasn't supposed to be this way, but during the so-called Progessive Era the powers that were changed our constitution (without bothering with the Constitution, though they changed that, too) for fear of Machine Politics and the attendant corruption. They sought to place the civil service above mere politics, and thus created what can be called the Permanent Government.

Ever notice how politicians disdain politics? How they accuse their opponents of "playing politics," and so forth? As if there's politics over here and the right thing to do over there, and some body of people who aren't politicians know the right thing and politicians don't. Those knowers of the right thing were Progressives, surprise, surprise. And everybody else was simply wrong and unprofessional. They had a point about nepotism, for instance. Machines were wont to empower moronic nephews, and it's a good thing we have tests to weed out morons from "public service." But does anyone think politics are less corrupt now, now that politicians have infinitely more power than in 1900? Or is corruption the right word for it? What do you call it when a paper pusher doesn't get paid to mess around with the natural order, enrich one party at the expense of another against common sense and often the law, but does so anyway. Not necessarily because of how he's been trained, his ideology or the ideology of his superiors, or for any reason you can pinpoint. Sometimes it just happens because he has the power. Is that corruption, or do we have to come up with another, eviler term?

The Permanent Government is what rules you today. Not elected officials, not the general will, not hidden conspirators (though they try). They get their training and guidance, if not marching orders, from the universities and the oddly named NGOs (foundations, think tanks, etc.) Together they represent the real power in this country. Wall Street money buttresses them, and Big Business gets to write laws directly affecting them, but they fell out of the saddle in the New Deal (even though the men still in charge happened to be Wall Streeters, like FDR, described as a "traitor to his class").

Nixon tried to gain control of the executive branch, which the public falsely believes is the executive's responsibility, by building a sort of supercabinet above the cabinet. Partly for this they called him an imperial president and threw him out of office. Trump won't do much better. The only way out, so far as I can see, is through a coup by the most old-fashioned sector of the Permanent Government, the military, or through revolution. But that's a crapshoot.

kfg,NY is similar to probably most (if not all) NE states. Many are "blue" because of one or two cities. The rest of the state couldn't be more different. As James Carville said (paraphrase), "Pennsylvania is Philly on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle."

@91-By the way, I know you said "modern," and I might assume that meant post-New Deal. But you also specified the 19th century, and Republicans ruled, despite the tragically important Wilsonian interlude, up to 1933. I hope this didn't distort your point.

Certainly since the revolution within the form that was the New Deal Republicans have been the opposition party at best, and the nothing party often. Since '33 there have been people who owed family and class loyalty to the party, and they might be said to have loved it. Also, people loved particular Republicans, like Reagan. But mostly, no, no one votes for them without it being mostly voting against the other guys.

Notice that Wehner isn't some run-of-the-mill Congressman-lackey but is a big DC think-tank guy run by the CFR. These sorts of Op-Eds by insiders is a strong sign the establishment is going to go full Anti-Trump when it comes to him vs. Hillary.

This is basically another public signaling for the go-ahead to Republican leadership across the country to commence Anti-Trump speeches, interviews and activity .

"The most certain way to know that Trump is doing well is to observe the way in which the liberal mainstream media is affording these cuckservatives a national platform to take these futile shots at him."

Of course, all of this is absurd from a certain standpoint, when one considers that the President is African, the opposition-appointed spokeswoman is Pakistani, the two other candidates who may challenge Trump are both Latino, and the S Ct doesn't have a single Protestant European-American man on it.

Here is what I'm saying goes: Don't get so excited about elections or candidates, even those as fun as Trump. The U.S. is dead, not just the Republican Party. The only way we get to where we need to go is by force.

The pundit class is so far out of touch with America. They simply don't recognize the fact that middle America loves the guy and what he says; it doesn't register in their heads. What I hear online and what I hear in real life interactions are like night and day.

@93. cavalier973:When I saw that I wondered did (Pat Buchanan) run in '96? Like I've said, Whackopedia is not useless:1996 saw Buchanan's most successful attempt to win the Republican nomination. With a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) seeking re-election, there was no incumbent Republican with a lock on the ticket. Indeed, with former President George H. W. Bush having made clear he was not interested in re-gaining the office, the closest the party had to a front-runner was the Senate Majority leader Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, who was considered to have many weaknesses.Can't call 'em wrong on that one :)

Trump just isn't the right sort to be governing a nation such as the United States, don't you know. He actually seems to be listening to those benighted peasants, and willing to actually address their silly concerns! He is a danger to how we do things.

Reminds me of my new most hated phrase often repeated by liberal pussies and cuckservatives: "That isn't who we are." Speak for yourselves, cucks. It's exactly who I am.

`...defeat the Islamic State ``very quickly`` while as a bonus taking it`s oil...` I remember a bumper sticker from the `70s with a beragged Arab skull on the sands with the words, `Nuke their ass/Take the gas!` Putin however may beat him to it.

I just showed the following to my actual-in-the-real-world-not-on-a-blog USG employees and they all laughed.

Of course they did. So did the air traffic controllers just before Reagan fired them. Your fellows, like all bureaucrats, are very good at one thing...focusing on the past. That is how they do their jobs, by checking the manual, seeing how it was done in the past, and doing it the same way today. How will it be done tomorrow? Same way, as it was done yesterday.

Their jobs were protected in the past, ergo their jobs will be protected today, and tomorrow. But bureaucrats are terrible at seeing change in the future. Change in the future isn't in the manual. That is why the Federal Reserve was caught flat-footed by the housing crisis. That is why the US military lost the Vietnam War, the second Iraq war, and Afghanistan. That is why Detroit city employees lost their pensions.

Your fellows' jobs will be perfectly safe, right up until they aren't. That is how it worked for Greece, and that is how it will work here.

@71 DavidKathome Now flippantly firing employees like Celebrity Apprentice won't fly well, so there would need to be justification for firing government employees. But a popular President can pull it off. ---

How about the old chestnut of eliminating entire departments, such as Education or Energy. That would be a wholesale firing of a lot of people. Not that I think it will happen, just one way it could be done.

Quoted Article: "For Republicans, there is an additional reason not to vote for Mr. Trump. His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism"

Oh? Conservatism that has fought to keep trillion-dollar spending omnibuses from passing? Conservatism that's prevented poor "trade-deals", like the TPP? Conservatism that has refused to enslave its people by continually acquiring debt in their names, vouchsafed against their earnings?

Conservatism that stands against federal agencies running roughshod against the Constitution? -- The NSA and its domestic espionage? The BATFE and its various gun-running operations? The funding/equipping of terrorists? The tax-courts, which deny jury-trials? The divorce-courts, which deny jury trials? -- Conservatism that treats citizenship as something valuable, instead of passing it out like candy?

I'm sorry, but when has the Republican party stood for any of that? What is this Republican Conservatism? What has it accomplished that is good for me?

I was surprised by Trump's position on China and tariffs. At this rate, he's going to get all of the Democrat union votes, both living and dead. He walked all over the rest of the field last night - undeniably his best debate performance.

Who know if you can trust what the guy says, but the head-splodening has been a blast.

Also, I don't understand why populism is considered an insult. Politicians usually argue that they are representing the will of the majority, even when it's not true. Now trump has popular support and suddenly that's a bad thing?

The American Cuckservative chimes in:The reader Deep South Populist and I disagree deeply on matters of race in America, and as a rule, I’m not going to post comments going forward that use the inflammatory (versus illuminating) term “white genocide” to describe the travails of the white working class. When they start talking about a Final Solution for Dan and Roseanne Connor, then we’ll start talking about white genocide on this blog.And you wonder why I dubbed Rod Dreher that.The people who support Donald Trump know what the Fareed Zakarias of the globalist establishment (both liberals and conservatives) think of them. They get it. Me, I’m certain that Trump is not a solution to the working class’s problems, or to anybody’s problems, but it is perfectly obvious why people would want to believe that he is.See previous comment.Do I think Trump can win? I answered that question already, not at all impossible, but the stench of kayfabe is strong.Assuming he does, will he actually accomplish anything? Who knows? He may well realize you can make claims in politics that could be the ruin of business - Volkswagen, for example.The only reason I'm rooting for ''Gorgeous George'' is to see him attack ''The creepy cuckservatives''.At least he pretends to think America matters more than Israel, China, Mexico, and so on.

"Me, I’m certain that Trump is not a solution to the working class’s problems, or to anybody’s problems, but it is perfectly obvious why people would want to believe that he is."

This is where I still sort-of am. I don't mean building a wall or limiting immigration; I can certainly see the merits of that. I meant a lot of Trump's economic ideas. Like eminent domain and 45% tariffs.

Seriously, just cut corporate income taxes to 25% and give it a couple years. If 3D printing hasn't destroyed the Chinese advantage by then, the Chinese bureaucracy will have.

The fact that THE WAR PARTY (the Republicans) that has STARVED, BOMBED and MURDERED millions in the Middle East and around the world has the audacity to lecture Trump IS DISGUSTING.

The Republican Party STANDS FOR NOTHING BUT WAR. They've surrendered on every issue. And they only get excited - and get a blood lust erection - when it comes to new wars to pursue. From the bottom of my heart I say F U Republicans.

The fact that a Republican piece of garbage like this thinks he stands on the moral high ground is disgusting. The filthy trash Bush family is responsible for the deaths and homelessness of MILLIONS!!!! in the Middle East. MILLIONS murder by the Bush crime family and THEY DARE TO BITCH ABOUT TRUMP?!!!

And suddenly they cry alligator tears about limitations on immigration. Like they give a shit about Mohammadians.

FU Republicans. The Republican Party should be thrown in the trash bin of history. That's where garbage belongs.

All this stuff about how President Trump can't touch the permanent government because blah, blah, blah. Trump is changing all the rules. Paying attention to the campaign at all? If he needs to he'll persuade Congress to pass a law giving him plenary authority to hire and fire whomever he chooses throughout the entire federal bureaucracy. And once he gets in another Clarence Thomas or two into the Supreme Court the disparate impact lawyers can go pound sound and the people will love Trump for it. Because the people love Trump.

"Cruz then said he might like Trump to build a wall. I thought that was a good line if he's still looking to grab Trump's supporters"

We dont need a wall; we need the will - to resist and expel. Cruztro has admitted defeat, and will not even TRY to deport the "eleven" million already here. With him in charge, a wall is only going to trap the invaders -- and their spawn -- in here with us.

Trump is the only candidate right now expressing the will to tackle the problem.

The people at Empower America (including Pete Wehner) were in a frenzy over the possibility that Buchanan might get The GOP nomination. I was given the task of looking up every anti-woman statement that Buchanan had made. I was unable to find any such statements.

If you'll remember, Dole won the nomination, and Jack Kemp was his running mate. Kemp was also part of Empower America, as well as Jean Kirkpatrick.

One of the decisions I've regretted was to intern with a think tank rather than with a congressman.

Businesses are equivalent to people under the law. Go with a 10% flat rate income tax rate on business and individuals alike with no exemptions (yes, businesses would be taxed on income, not profits, just like individuals). They don't like that, they can give up their treatment as people under the law. Do away with all other taxes and fees.

If you want to keep some deductions, raise it to 15% and allow each person and individual deduction of $10K or so indexed to inflation, and allow businesses to deduct a similar amount per employee. No other deductions allowed.

Or go with a similar sales tax on all things bought or sold by businesses (to be collected by the business) and do away with all other taxes entirely. Transactions between individuals would not be taxed.

If that's not enough to fund our current spending, then our spending needs to be cut till it is.

Corporations, not businesses. And while the law, it's still a legal absurdity. A corporation is a legal person, not a natural person. It can only come into existence by a grant of special privileges not available to natural persons by the state. The state has the right to impose responsibilities and limits as it chooses for granting those privileges.Privileges are not rights.

"Go with a 10% flat rate income tax rate on business and individuals alike with no exemptions (yes, businesses would be taxed on income, not profits, just like individuals)."

The income tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty (and a side effect of prohibition, the Fed ran on the liquor tax prior to). Address that issue.

But in the meantime: individuals can take investment deductions just as can businesses. In fact, the majority of businesses are individuals. Your scheme would kill most of these, as well as other businesses that chug along at a steady but low profit margin, like grocery stores, many of which would be thrilled to death to see a profit margin on sales of as much as 10%.

Why not just kill the income and sales taxes?

There's just no way to practically define the income of a business other than as its profit.

"Or go with a similar sales tax . . ."

The sales tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty. It requires all people who wish to do business to act as agent of the state, subject to all laws applicable to agents of the state.

The easy way for him to get rid of middle management and in fact 90% of the bureaucrats is play the same game the Democrats have been playing with the budget bills in reverse. Veto anything but spending bills individualized to agency/department level funding. Blame the Democrats when the government shuts down if they fail to send the funding bill exactly how he asks for him. Then veto any funding bills for the unnecessary departments/agencies. The decks would be cleared quickly this way. If the Democrats dug their heels in many bureaucrats would be forced to quit after not getting paid at all for months.

@148 "The income tax is an element of the destruction of personal liberty (and a side effect of prohibition, the Fed ran on the liquor tax prior to). Address that issue."

I disagree; the real problem with the income tax not being just is not the inherent nature, but because of two policies: (1) that they are not applied uniformly [that is, different tax-rates for different folks], and (2) withholdings [which are either forcing the employer into fraud (by not paying the agreed upon amount to the employee), or outright theft steeling the wages before the employee is paid].

@150 I would argue the most destructive part of it is it's coercive ability. This is addressed at a high level in your point one but to be more specific, the SCOTUS gave US Gov Carte Blanc to dictate individual behavior. This is accomplished through heavy taxes for not doing as directed. It is also the method used for much of the Cronyism that occurs.

A new President could do, or at least attempt, the following:- Issue an executive order that negates all executive orders of the prior 3 administrations.- Even though Congress has the power of the purse, the President could cut 20% off the budget across the board of every allocated part of the USG, in the name of ensuring that the USG itself shall not go bankrupt.- Declare that Congress has not done its Constitutional duty regarding regulatory bodies, and nullify all regulations enacted for the last 10 years until & unless Congress reviews and approves each individual such regulation. - Declare all SWAT police that have proliferated in various federal agencies to be outside the scope of their regulatory purview, and force them to use local police instead, thereby slowing down to uselessness the whole enforcement part of anarcho-tyrrany. - Declare that all regulations issued under the rubric of the precautionary principle do not meet Constitutional standards of prior restraint.- Clean out the DOJ from top to bottom, and charge it with enforcing voter fraud and immigration fraud. Sic it on sanctuary cities, making a test case out of SF. Run a few companies out of business that have regularly hired illegals. - Declare that SCOTUS' use of stare decisis is considered invalid and will no longer be observed by his administration.- Declare that he will no longer sign into law or even accept laws from Congress that exceed 100 pages, and that do not include specific examples of what the law covers, and also what the law does not cover.

I could keep on going, but a traditionalist President could do a lot to halt the leftist establishment if he were a truly creative, single-minded SOB.

@147 James Dixon:Or go with a similar sales tax on all things bought or sold by businesses (to be collected by the business) and do away with all other taxes entirely. Transactions between individuals would not be taxed.I've mentioned in the past why I don't care much for that idea - what is and isn't taxable, and when or even where is something taxable or not (for example in Arkansas groceries are sales taxable, most states they're not).Another issue was brought up recently by 0bama in his latest 'gun control' push:Where do you draw the line as what constitutes a 'private sale' and what constitutes 'an ongoing business'.Sell a gun (or a car for that matter) for cash to a buddy, fine, private sale.Sell another gun/car to another buddy a few months later now what? Are you a gun (or car) dealer? Not so clear now. Even the BATFE can't determine how many sales over what period of time means ''Now you need a FFL and must do background checks'' - the so-called 'gun show loophole'.With cars that's actually easier: ''if X number of title transfers over Y time = must have car dealer license'' for, among other things, sales tax purposes.

"It ties in with the leftism/Scandinavian connection Vox observed in Minnesota."

Been in towns in Wisconsin full of Empire-prosperous leftie Germans, too.

Dunno the demographics of Madison, but it is picturesque, energetic, and evil. In a prosperous and cheery way. I chewed out its Capitol Building one evening for pulling some bullshit. With the volume up. Some dood cheered afterwards.

As for Gerson and Wehner etc, think of them as the New Gestapo. More personable, a bit less ideological, but lots more tricksy, the East India Company gone west. Turns out the crypt at skull n bones isn't far removed from wewelsberg!

@147... A President could lay down tariffs on all multi-nationals that import goods manufactured in other countries, as well as reduce corporate taxes on all those who have or ramp up real manufacturing (not just assembly) of goods within the US.

If you threw some of those bastards in the pokey for hiring illegals along with a hefty, put your ass out of bidness fine,You'd see Pancho (who knows damn well he should not be here)stay his happy ass on his side of the border where he belongs. Try it, bet it works.

@150: "I disagree; the real problem with the income tax not being just . . ."

I did not invoke the concept of justice.

@151: "My statement obviously wasn't clear. The requirement would only apply to incorporated entities. Corporations, not businesses. They're already agents of the state."

That relieves a fair number of my objections.

" . . .that's easier said than done."

Any large change is difficult. Might as well go for a good one, but the idea that you should actually ask for what you want seems to be a difficult one for some people. A proper haggler asks for rather more than what he wants, he might just get it, but if he doesn't he has head room to work with. Don't make the other side's counter offers for them.

" . . .tax on all things bought or sold by corporations to be paid by the corporations and do away with all other taxes entirely."

@156 "Even the BATFE can't determine how many sales over what period of time means ''Now you need a FFL and must do background checks''

Because the need for a FFL is not based on number of sales, in the main it is based on attempt to earn a profit. Nothing Obama did changed this.

If you are buying at a low price and selling at a high price, never taking the firearm out of it's box, then you probably need an FFL, even if you only sell one firearm. If you buy a few guns, play with them for a few months, then sell at break even or a loss so you can buy some different ones, then you do not need a FFL.

The Pub the ATF put out within the last two weeks explained it fairly well, if you actually take the time to read it. Most of the internet gun culture just went full retard over the wrong thing. The attempt by Social Security to turn over it's records was a much bigger attack on the 2nd.

Folks saying President Trump can't fire executive branch employees... I disagree with you - just because things haven't been done that way before doesn't mean they can't be done that way in the future - but it wasn't federal employees I was thinking of when I said the cuck in Vox's original post was worried about Trump yelling "you're fired."

Trump as a GOP President can "fire" the political party hacks like Peter Wehner. If nothing else, he can freeze them out of the political appointments that always happen with a change of party. He may or may not be a threat to commies at the State Department, but he's absolutely a threat to cuckservatives at the GOP party headquarters.

@114 You could scrub whole sub-departments like Justice's Office of Civil Rights by assigning it tasks its employees find abhorrent and holding them to stiff measures of performance (I like the idea of giving OCR the task of prosecuting polar-bear hunters, robber/murderers and rapists for capital hate crimes). There are hundreds if not thousands of such crimes meriting hate-crimes designation. Lots will quit, or fail to perform and be dismissed.

The Carr brothers escaped capital punishment under Kansas law. Now imagine a majority-Black OCR assigned to get them the death penalty under Federal hate-crimes law. How many do you think would stay?

@160 One major problem is that OCR and EEOC have been prosecuting businesses for being "too diligent" in checking documents establishing eligibility for employment. You HAVE to give everyone a pass for that... while REQUIRING all businesses to run their existing employees through E-Verify and discharging those who can't verify their status after e.g. 90 days.

@3, @19, others: Wehner is a Jew out of the COMMENTARY magazine crowd. The original organ of the "ex"-Trotskyite communist Jews who broke away from their Red friends because the latter were anti-Israel. But otherwise maintained their Universalist/ "progresssive" Tikkun Olam. Thus the neo-conz: Wehner and Co. On the larger JP, it's like Limbaugh a session or two ago, nattering on about political issues and citing in quick succession 1) Michael Gerson, 2) David Brooks, and 3) Andrea Mitchell as particularly pestiferous. Though Limbaugh couldn't say so (his mike would've gone dead in 15 seconds), all 3 are Jews as well and perfectly representative of the Jewish networking of the entire chattering class and all the rest of the DemoncratRepubliscam one-party State. Incidentally, since Jews are about 1/50th of the population, the likelihood of a random distribution in this particular kosher tri-fecta is 125,000::1

@167The War of Yankee Aggression did not start until a month after Lincoln was inaugurated. The war could have been avoided if the tyrant Lincoln had not called for levies of troops to invade the Southern nation.

Then veto any funding bills for the unnecessary departments/agencies. The decks would be cleared quickly this way. If the Democrats dug their heels in many bureaucrats would be forced to quit after not getting paid at all for months.---

that would be beautiful. And imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth over things like the Department of Energy, EPA, Education, etc

Another way to get the entrenched LeftProgs to quit their government posts is to reassign them. Give each one a small, bare office with a chair. Just a chair. No desk, no computer, no pictures on the wall, no plants, nothing to read, nothing to do. The assignment is to sit in the chair for eight hours a day, looking at the wall. I doubt even the mentally deranged LeftProgs could keep this up for more than a few days. We would still be paying them, sure, but they wouldn't be doing anything [any damage!], which would be a plus.

@127-Populism is partly an insult because the populists were losers, and not just run of the mill losers but losers that need to be perpetually made an example of,like the so-called isolationist. There aren't many around anymore to defend them, as their chief constituency has no power, aside from the various farm subsidies they command and the fact that primary season starts in Iowa.

There are a bunch of other reasons. They are potential reactionaries or radicals (whichever scares you most), they represent the loathed "paranoid style," they are thought of as bumpkins, they might be Bible thumpers and bitter clingers, etc. They are outside the sure control of the propaganda system, which is the means by which the ruling class maintains power.

I despise populism too, though not in every aspect. William Jennings Bryan's pacifism, for instance, I find intriguing. My problem, aside from sentimental elitism (not what passes for an elite in this country, but actual elitism), is that populists tend to be worse than our common enemies. I hate banksters, too, but please, God, let us carry the burden of the Cross of Gold.

@142-Trump is not Caesar. I don't see him doing the impossible and undoing the New Deal revolution. Not even a reanimated FDR could do that.

The problem with resting his power on his appeal to the people over the heads of officialdom is that he still needs the MSM to do that. Can't do it with the internet and whisper campaigns yet. All he's mamaged thus far is to dodge persistent but halfhearted torpedoes and tge general sense that he doesn't deserve to be there. He has run wild with the slack they've given him, but what has it amounted to? Not enough popularity to give him the sort of power he needs to Lord it over Washington. They destroyed everyone who seriously threatened them, with admittedly a low bar for seriousness (see McCarthy, Nixon, etc.), every single time. Heck, they even snapped back against FDR himself.

The one area where presidents have it all over everyone else is foreign policy, and if Trump should find himself in a giant war, as for instance we seem to want with Russia, he could match our excuses for Caesars: Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. But the end result of such power has been disastrous, in my opinion, and I hope Trump never gets it.

@167-I find the idea that the Civil War started under Buchanan highly dubious. The popular verdict is that it started at Ft. Sumter, and I think a strong case can be made for tracing it to when Lincoln ordered Southern ports blockaded.

WRT trying to fire government employees who resist by working to the rule book: Isn't tying up a government department good enough for a start? If the Dept. of Education can't get anything done, isn't that a gain for us? Provoking the employees to shut down the government is a good thing, isn't it? And clogging all the Federal courts with civil service grievance lawsuits has benefits too.

Maybe Trump can cut a deal with Putin: We make war on Russia and "lose" (After NYC is nuked), then they send us a few ex-KGBs to "occupy" us and purge us of progressives. All the boots on the doors will, of course, be actual Americans. After a year the Russians go home. In return, we stop invading the world.

@93 Lots of Catholic Poles in Buffalo. Many evenings the six alarm blaze in Cheektowaga would be bumped from the top story because either John Paul II or Lech Walesa, and sometimes both, were in the news.

In 1973, he published a book: Conspiracy Against the Dollar: The Spirit of the New Imperialism, which alleged that world events were controlled by three secret factions: the Rockefeller family, the "Bolshevik-Zionist axis," and the Kremlin. His intent was to warn everyone against the plans of the "Rockefeller Cartel", which he thought risked having the United States meet the same fate as France in World War II. In 1974, Beter publicly stated that most of the gold in Fort Knox had been sold to European interests, at prices vastly below market rates. According to him, international speculators had dishonestly obtained the gold.

/pol/, /fringe or /x/, you make the call. I'm going with /pol/ack. Hes's probably right about the gold.